You are simply identifying use and token. They are not the same. — Banno
The basic rules of the system (physics) guide the apparent self-organization of the system. So it's not really "self-organizing" it's just that we're recognizing certain behaviors of certain arrangements of matter (which through basic rules) produce a pattern of interaction that exhibits more complex behavior as a whole than the bits following simple rules that comprise it. — VagabondSpectre
That's a vague claim. — apokrisis
Modern biophysics would agree that electron transport chains are vitally important as "entropic mechanism". But even more definitional would be proton gradients across membranes. It is those which are the more surprising fact at least. — apokrisis
So it is the ability to separate the energy capture from the energy spending - the flow of entropy vs the flow of work - which is the meaningful basis of life. — apokrisis
So again, silicon/electrons is just not that kind of stuff. — apokrisis
Neurons communicate with muscles, for instance, by electric discharge. Look into it. It's fascinating stuff. — Mongrel
Science fiction writers have long imagined silicon-based life forms, silicon and carbon being similar. — Mongrel
Only if the rule is only influencing and not compelling. If a rule is only influencing, then following it is a voluntary act of the mind. But if compelling, then the object does not need to have a mind. We are influenced by man-made laws, and it is our voluntary choice to follow them or break them. On the other hand, our bodies (and all mindless objects with a mass) "follow" the laws of gravity because they are compelling laws, and we cannot help but fall from the sky to the ground. All laws of physics are compelling laws.Doesn't it require a mind to follow rules — Metaphysician Undercover
It's often referred to as the neuro-endocrine system because the two function pretty thoroughly as a team in governing the body. — Mongrel
I will think you will find that is BS. Triggering a gland is different from triggering a muscle. Even if "electrical discharge" is involved in neither. — apokrisis
Electrical discharge along axons precedes the release of acetylcholine. I'm not sure why you're denying that. It's a science fact, dude. — Mongrel
Eh.. I was an electronic engineer for 10 years. I've been a nurse for 10 years. — Mongrel
I believe you're suggesting that only a particular kind of material can be organized as a living thing. And this is somehow related to your understanding that life involves signs in a way that non-life does not. — Mongrel
Only if the rule is only influencing and not compelling. If a rule is only influencing, then following it is a voluntary act of the mind. But if compelling, then the object does not need to have a mind. We are influenced by man-made laws, and it is our voluntary choice to follow them or break them. On the other hand, our bodies (and all mindless objects with a mass) "follow" the laws of gravity because they are compelling laws, and we cannot help but fall from the sky to the ground. All laws of physics are compelling laws. — Samuel Lacrampe
Laws of physics, such as "the laws of gravity" are all man-made laws. — Metaphysician Undercover
But to say that objects are moving in this way because they are compelled to by the laws of gravity, is a category error. — Metaphysician Undercover
The basic rules of the system (physics) guide the apparent self-organization of the system. So it's not really "self-organizing" it's just that we're recognizing certain behaviors of certain arrangements of matter (which through basic rules) produce a pattern of interaction that exhibits more complex behavior as a whole than the bits following simple rules that comprise it.
Do you see the problem here? We have no precedent whereby we can say that matter is capable of following rules. But Sam L. responded with the claim that matter follows the laws of gravity. That's why I pointed out the category error. The position being argued by VagabondSpectre, and apokrisis as well for that matter, is completely supported by this category error. Simply stated, the error is that existent material can interpret some fundamental laws, to structure itself in a self-organizing way. it is only through this error, that supporters of this position can avoid positing an active principle of "life", and vitalism. — Metaphysician Undercover
-an infinitely regressive series of ever more fundamental materially efficient causes
-true spontaneity and randomness at the 'lowest' level
-or a most fundamental "primary uncaused cause".
There is a more subtle rendering of this notion in which "infinity" is read as without ends, or bounds, rather than a strict infinity, which itself is a human invention and susceptible to simplistic logical abstraction. Also "materially" can be treated as any form, or kind of extension in any manifestation in any realm, or dimension.Personally, I find the idea of an infinitely regressive series of materially efficient causes to be the least coherent or intelligible alternative.
Etc.It is different in that it explicitly embraces the holism of a dichotomy. It says reality is the result of a separation towards two definite and complementary poles of being - chance and necessity, material fluctuation and formal constraint, or what Peirce called tychism and synechism, that is, spontaneity and continuity
Again, you are thinking that computers are doing something that is mind-like. And so it is only a matter of time before that gets sufficiently scaled up that it approaches a real mind. But syntax can't generate semantics from syntactical data. Syntax has to be actually acting to constrain interpretive uncertainty. It has to be functioning as the sign by which a mind with a purpose is measuring something about the world. — apokrisis
A computer could be designed to simulate this kind of triadic relation. That is what neural networks do. But they are very clunky or grainy. And getting more biologically realistic is not about the number of circuits to be thrown at the modelling of the world - dealing with the graininess of the syntactic-level representation - but about the lightness of touch or sensitivity of the model's interaction with the world. And so again, it is about a relation founded on extreme material instability. — apokrisis
That's all fine, so is there a "unity", a "singularity" in The Big Bang Event — Punshhh
Simply stated, the error is that existent material can interpret some fundamental laws, to structure itself in a self-organizing way. it is only through this error, that supporters of this position can avoid positing an active principle of "life", and vitalism. — Metaphysician Undercover
The accuracy of prediction is not what is at issue here. The claim was made that matter follows rules, and this is what allows for the apparent self-organizing of living beings. — Metaphysician Undercover
The basic rules are self-evident brute facts of reality. So when you say "existent material can interpret some fundamental laws", that's a more or less accurate way of saying that matter behaves with some consistency. — VagabondSpectre
But Sam L. responded with the claim that matter follows the laws of gravity. That's why I pointed out the category error. The position being argued by VagabondSpectre, and apokrisis as well for that matter, is completely supported by this category error. Simply stated, the error is that existent material can interpret some fundamental laws, to structure itself in a self-organizing way. it is only through this error, that supporters of this position can avoid positing an active principle of "life", and vitalism. — Metaphysician Undercover
There seems no reason for the rules, and no connection between these abstractions and the concrete objects they determine. — apokrisis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.